Talk:Boeing 717/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article

http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_717.htm

NPOV tag

This article was tagged as not being neutral but there is, obviously, nothing here on the talk page to indicate why. The text is somewhat prosey, but not in my view lacking in NPOV. I've therefore removed the tag. ProhibitOnions 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I left my reason in the edit summary rather than on the talk page. I'm looking at sentences like: "The wisdom of the Boeing decision gradually became apparent." The article contains a lot of analysis of states of mind and qualitative factors, but doesn't cite any sources. It feels POV or OR, and could really stand to have the prose turned down a notch. Night Gyr 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, makes sense. I'll put it back in. Thanks, ProhibitOnions 08:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the NPOV tag was removed shortly after it was put back. I'm putting it back in. Please add your comments to the talk page if you remove it. Jsding 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your tag. It's been almost a year since it was added then removed, and it's improved a lot since then. I find it very interesting that no other editor working on this article in the last 11 months has thought it violated NPOV. One sentence hardly make the article POV. If you don't think the sentence belongs, then please delete it, and anything else you feel is POV. - BillCJ 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the "wisdom" sentence is the problem, rephrase it or suggest alternate wording. The sentence sets up the rest of the paragraph. There would be a disconnect with just removing it. If there are other examples, please state them so we can work on them. -Fnlayson 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing Airticle Name From "Boeing 717" To "Boeing 717-200"

The Boeing 717 was a Military Transport, based on the 707. It shared similarity with the KC-135 As Well. This airplane is the Boeing 717-200, and it was called the 717-200 because there was already a "717" (-100). For The Sake Of Accuracy, I reccomend we rename this Article, and the references to it to illustrate this fact.--VonVeezelsnider 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• The KC-135 was initially designated within Boeing as the model 717. Not worth renaming this article because of that. That's just trivia - Fnlayson 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The -200 designation has nothing to do with the prior model.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 09:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the -200 model reflected the fact that it was effectively a 'mid-size' DC-9 variant - there was some work towards a -100 that would have been equivalent to a DC-9-30. ericg ✈ 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the air force jet was the 717. I'm not so certain that it was called the 717-100. http://seattlepi.com/business/204720_air22.html says

"The KC-135 still is Boeing model 717. That has never changed," said Boeing's Mike Lombardi, the company's longtime historian.

"What causes confusion," he added, "is the reuse of the 717 designation for the MD-95, which was done to bring that plane into the Boeing family. So we now have two model 717s. The subtle difference is the MD-95's full designation is 717-200, giving some separation from the KC-135, which is the model 717-100."

I added this fact as a single sentence or two under "history". Archtrain 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• There would only a problem inside Boeing as 717 was only an internal designation for the KC-135. Even then only historian types would know about the 717-100. It's trivia for most folks. -Fnlayson 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As Ericg stated above, Boeing was working on a 717-100, a shorter version of the MD-95/717-200. THis would have made things even more confusing. I think it best to just state the KC-135 was the origianl 717, and leave it at that. Also, remember the KC-135 came before the 707, so for us to say its a version of the 707 with a narrower fuselage is somewhat misleading. THe 367-80 was first, then the KC-135 was slighty wider to fit the USAF's requirements, and the 707 was redesigned to be even wider because of the competing DC-8. - BillCJ 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vague MD-90 sales statement

The second sentence below seems a bit vague. This is from the Early background section.

Almost 1,200 MD-80s were delivered through the 1980s and early 1990s, but the following MD-90 sold poorly, with just 117 built. It outsold the 737-600 and Airbus A318, suggesting that low sales could have been due to the lack of a supporting family of aircraft.

Seems like that should be "It was outsold by the 737-600..". Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This bit confused me too. The MD-90 is a larger aircraft and didn't really compete with the 737-600 and A318. I suspect this is trying to refer to the 717's competitors, but saying that outselling the family aircraft suggested that low sales were the results of being part of a family is pretty contradictory. It's confusing and speculative, I'll just delete it from the article. -- Hawaiian717 06:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Goodrich paragraph

I removed this paragraph from the End of production section.

As for the Engine Build-up (EBU), Goodrich Aerostructures Group (formerly Rohr Industries) in Chula Vista, California had completed the last pair of the nacelles for the Rolls-Royce BR715 engines in March 15, 2006. The nacelle package for the engines, which consist the inlet, fan cowls and thrust reversers, along with the EBU, were designed and manufactured by Goodrich Aerostructures Group, with the integration in Building 61 of its plant in Chula Vista. By coincidence, the B717 program's last design engineer Gary Knaust at Goodrich Aerostructures Group has retired from his career shortly after the last nacelles delivery to Boeing.

I don't see these details as being relevent to the 717. It should be in Goodrich article or something. -Fnlayson 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian Airlines interest

The MD-80/-90 article has the following about the plane being created for SAS. (I did some edits in the section but this has been there a while.)

The MD-95 was initially created especially for Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) to replace its older DC-9 aircraft. But SAS, who was previously a loyal customer to McDonnell Douglas, choose the Boeing 737 instead.

I did some internet searches and can't find anything that backing that up, but its been a few years. Anybody know something about this? If I can find a source I'd like to add to History section in this article. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here's one article I found on this.[1] But I don't have a NY Times subcription to read the whole article. -Fnlayson 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think my Douglas Jetliner book mentions this about SAS. I'll have to check on that.. -Fnlayson 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We could dissect the statement:
MD-95 created for SAS? I'm not so sure of this. It would seem logical that they were trying to replace the DC-9-30, which SAS had.
SAS, previously a loyal customer? I agree. They ordered several versions of the DC-8, DC-9, including the DC-9-20, DC-9 Super 80, MD-90, DC-10, MD-11.
Chose the 737? Could be improved by saying the 737-600. Archtrain 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't use all the quoted part above in this article. Only SAS choosing 737-600 over the MD-95. Adding 'Long time McDonnell Douglas customer' to that was good and helped the rest of the sentence make more sense. Thanks. -Fnlayson 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)